The Helmet Update

Vol. 12, No. 2 - August, 1994Previous Issue: March, 1994

Consumer Reports Publishes Helmet Ratings

The August, 1994, Consumer Reports contains a first-class article
on bicycle helmets. CU only rates bicycle helmets every four or
five years, so this article is a big event.

In the usual format, general info is followed by features to look
for, then a ratings chart. The features are well covered,
including the importance of fit, and there is a sidebar on kid's
helmets. As in 1990, CU based its impact ratings on a
softest-landing approach, rather than testing for who meets the
300 g standard in the test drops. Since all the tested models met
the Snell standard anyway, showing which ones exceed it by the
widest margin is just what the consumer needs. CU tested only on
a flat anvil, just one part of a Snell or ASTM test, but it does
correspond to the crash where the rider hits something flat and
hard, which is by far the most frequent scenario.

In the ratings only three helmets earned the full red blob for
best impact protection: Schwinn Aerolight, Trek Micro and Bell
Image (old model, not the current Image Pro). They kept the g
level below 200 g's. Also rated in the top six were the Vetta
Testarosa SL (excellent coverage and ventilation), Spaulding
79783 and Scott Cross-V. These three got half-red blobs for
impact performance, but their g level was not reported, so it is
difficult to say if the rating is significant. Below them were a
group of helmets with half-red blobs or plain white (average)
blobs. CU also did its own human-based rolloff tests for
stability for each helmet, awarding half-blobs to ten helmets
including the Schwinn, Bell Image and Trek. The Performance
Microtec ST II and Troxel Nino child helmet were downrated.

On the minus side, CU failed to make the very important
distinction between Snell's independent certification and a
manufacturer's assertion that their helmet meets ASTM or ANSI. We
think that is critical for consumers to know once the CU article
is out of date next spring, but CU makes no effort to tell
readers how to select helmets in coming years.

CU did a much better job this time of getting their article out
while the helmets were still current models. We would not
hesitate to refer consumers to this article for help in choosing
a helmet, particularly seniors who need the softest-landing
approach most. The rolloff test, ventilation ratings, ease of use
ratings, and various other comments will all help the reader
narrow the range of choices. We don't know yet about the
availability of reprints. The magazine is now online on AOL, CIS,
Dialog, Nexis and Prodigy.

Bell Chooses ASTM, Snell Frets

Bell Sports Inc. announced on July 7 that they would no longer
seek Snell certification for any of their bicycle helmets. Bell
will use the new ASTM standard instead.

The move will cost Snell $1.5 million in revenue, with a lesser
savings for Bell. Bell said their primary motivation was their
preference for the consensus standard-setting approach used by
ASTM. Right. Bell also said that the ASTM standard was superior
because it included a rolloff test. Not right. A rolloff test was
approved by sub-committee vote in May, but has not received
ASTM's final approvals, and will not be added to the actual
standard until much later this year, assuming approval is
granted. Snell, on the other hand, has upgraded its own B-90
Standard with a Supplement including a rolloff test. Supplemental
Snell stickers will appear in helmets in your local bike shop
soon.

Snell's Ed Becker responded with an attack on ASTM. With Bell
jumping ship he found it necessary "to reassure everyone that we
will not be crippled by their loss." He went on to attack ASTM's
consensus process as well as the certifying mechanism that
manufacturers hope to use to replace Snell, and the ASTM standard
itself, which he called "flawed." This carping from an
organization which has five members on the ASTM committee was a
disappointment to us. In an amended press release Snell said that
when it certifies a helmet to the Snell standard "we will provide
certified manufacturers all the support necessary to claim ASTM
qualification."

In sum, we have the country's largest helmet manufacturer
abandoning the organization it has used to certify many of its
bicycle helmets for 20 years. And that organization is lashing
back at the standard which manufacturers hope to use as a
replacement. The manufacturers often mention the cost of Snell's
certification. Snell's initial reaction referred first to
budgetary considerations. What does that mean for the consumer,
who just wants a reliable way to recognize the best helmet
available?

We continue to advise buyers to look first for the Snell sticker,
but with less enthusiasm than we had last month. For one thing,
Bell helmets will not have Snell stickers, even their best ones
and the current models which were Snell certified. Instead, you
will see a sticker from the Sports Equipment Institute
certifying the helmet to the ASTM standard. That is probably a
close second to a Snell sticker. The standards are comparable,
although Snell's is a bit better until ASTM officially acts on
its recent changes. The certifications may be of
comparable integrity as well, but Snell is a known quantity and
we have no experience with SEI or its process. The SEI program
appears well-managed, but it will be some time before we have a
good fix on SEI as a practical certifying organization. Meantime,
we are members of the ASTM committee, and we support the ASTM
standard as a good benchmark for consumers. In short, things are
not simple any more. And now, hold onto your hats: here comes
the U.S. Government.

CPSC to Write U.S. Government Standard, Hold Conference

Legislation passed by Congress and probably signed by the
President by the time you read this will require the Consumer
Product Safety Commission to promulgate a U.S. Government bicycle
helmet standard. We expect the new standard to have minimal
impact because it is unlikely to go beyond the current Snell and
ASTM standards.

The law requires CPSC to promulgate a standard, but Congress will
predictably not give them a staff or a budget to enforce it. The
standard is likely to be essentially the same as Snell and ASTM,
with the result that there will be little or no net gain for the
consumer. Only one shop we have found has been selling
uncertified helmets: the Branford Bicycle Exchange in
Connecticut. Their catalog has a leather "hairnet" with the
come-on "lighter and cooler than an ANSI-approved helmet." (We
bought two and sent them to CPSC urging a recall. No action.) The
CPSC standard will stop that abuse, which probably affects 50
consumers a year. Not much there for the other 67 million in the
U.S.

CPSC is sponsoring a roundtable discussion on multi-activity
safety helmets in Bethesda, MD (suburban DC) on September 19 from
9:30 AM to noon. The opening discussion topic will be an overview
of the CPSC-proposed bicycle helmet standard. The rest of the
session will be devoted to discussing a standard for
multi-activity helmets to protect users in numerous sports and
activities, reducing the need to buy multiple helmets. The final
item is to "identify areas which are capable of resolution in
time for possible inclusion in CPSC standard." If you have not
been invited to this conference and want to be, contact CPSC's
Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction at (301) 504-0554
and speak to either Cindy McKoy (x2232) or Sue Kyle (x2231)
before September 1st. If you come for the meeting we are inviting
you to an informal dinner at BHSI in nearby Arlington, VA the
night before the conference. Please call, fax or e-mail us if you
can come. The dinner is Sunday, September 18th, at 7 PM. We will
send you directions.

ASTM Standard Revised

The ASTM bicycle helmet standard committee met in Montreal in
May. The meeting considered a number of changes to the standard.
These changes by the committee must work their way through the
ASTM process, and if there are any objections they will have to
be considered again in the December meeting. In addition, several
important changes made last December received final ASTM approval
in July.

One of the ASTM anvils has been changed from a sharp 90 degree
edge to a rounded edge or curbstone. This may seem trivial, but
the sharp edge was splitting and therefore flunking many good
helmets which performed well in the field, and in practice there
are few or no crashes into objects that sharp. The curbstone
anvil is a better real-world test. That change has received final
ASTM approval and is officially part of the standard.

The committee has also agreed on a rolloff standard, but contrary
to the impression you may have from Bell's ads, it is not final.
The current version uses a hook under the edge of the helmet from
which a cord goes up over a pulley and back down to a weight. The
weight is dropped a measured distance. The helmet should not pull
off of the dummy head. This test has not yet been approved by the
final ASTM process, and therefore is not part of the ASTM
standard yet. Helmets which do not meet it can bear an ASTM
label.

The main significance for consumers of either change is to
improve the ASTM standard and make it more realistic. In our
opinion no rolloff test will ever substitute for having the
consumer buckle the helmet and try to push it off. Heads are
different, hair is different, and strap adjustment is very
different. But adding the rolloff test at least forces the
manufacturer to provide a full range of strap adjustments. (The
first rolloff test was adopted by Australia after some Taiwanese
helmets appeared there without nape strap adjusters. Those
helmets would flip off the front of the wearer's head with one
finger.) Eventually the testing may be refined enough to produce
reliable results for every body.

If you want a copy of the current ASTM standard, contact ASTM at
1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1187, tel. (215)
299-5499. Internet: service@local.astm.org. BHSI is a member of
the ASTM committee and we attend all of its meetings, in case you
have comments you want brought to the committee's attention.
Consumer advocates are always welcome. The next meeting will be
in Phoenix, December 7 and 8.
BHSI News
You can find this newsletter, our latest annotated bibliography,
the latest revision of our Most Asked Questions About Bicycle
Helmets, our latest helmet standards comparison and other BHSI
stuff on the Internet at VeloNet, otherwise known as The Global
Cycling Network. You can access it by FTP or gopher at
cycling.org. And don't forget that you can reach us directly for
e-mail here at info@bhsi.org.

We have also added a 24-hour interactive FaxBack service at our
regular phone number, (703) 486-0100. You can now call us from
the handset of your fax machine and receive documents by fax
immediately. Selections include statistics and background
information for preparing press articles or speeches, recent
helmet industry articles from Bicycle Retailer and Industry News,
this newsletter, our helmet standards comparison and more. We
have a comment on current developments in helmets and at present
we have information on the conference being hosted by CPSC as
another fax selection. The same number continues to be our
regular phone number, and you can leave voice messages or even
reach a live volunteer in the evenings as well as use the
FaxBack.